Tech Note: New Feature! Easy Embedded Instagram Photos and Videos

We have a new feature to announce today: you can now embed photos and videos from Instagram very easily.

To embed an Instagram post, don’t use the embed code; just post the address of the photo’s page. If you’re looking at an index page with more than one photo on it, just right-click the timestamp in the upper right, copy the link address, and paste that into an LGF comment.

If you’re on an individual photo’s page, just copy the address in your browser’s address line and paste that.

The address will look something like this:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BCHEbp9Cd3y/

And when you paste it into an LGF comment or an LGF Page, it will be automatically transformed into this:

I have avoided Instagram, in no small part to you Charles what with the image and Page features already. But okay with your endorsement, I’m in. Heh, how many new media accounts can one juggle and really participate in? I’m going to find out if one more fits in.

“Jeff Roe does not know the difference between fact and fiction,” said Joe Brazil, a county councilman in Missouri who unsuccessfully sued Mr. Roe for defamation after a 2006 blog post days before Mr. Brazil’s primary in a State Senate race.

The item focused on a sad event from Mr. Brazil’s youth, when, at 17, he killed a classmate in a dump-truck accident. Mr. Roe’s post suggested Mr. Brazil had consumed “quite a few beers.” But Mr. Brazil had not been drinking, the police said, and was not charged.

This sets a really fucking awful precedent, and there’s absolutely no reason to think that ‘election year’ will be any kind of bright line, either.

Cornyn’s argument - “they spoke in 2014, too” could apply at any time. Let’s say the Dems take the Senate this year, but not the White House. Cornyn has just provided the rationale for them to refuse to consider ANY nominations from a Republican President.

This sets a really fucking awful precedent, and there’s absolutely no reason to think that ‘election year’ will be any kind of bright line, either.

Cornyn’s argument - “they spoke in 2014, too” could apply at any time. Let’s say the Dems take the Senate this year, but not the White House. Cornyn has just provided the rationale for them to refuse to consider ANY nominations from a Republican President.

All this nonsense is about one simple fact. Senate GOPers think this kind of pure unadulterated obstruction is better for them politically than anything that could come from holding hearing and having votes (i.e., doing their jobs).

I’d really like to see the voters punish the GOP severely for making this calculation. Loss of both houses of Congress and failure to win the presidency would be a decent start.

This sets a really fucking awful precedent, and there’s absolutely no reason to think that ‘election year’ will be any kind of bright line, either.

Cornyn’s argument - “they spoke in 2014, too” could apply at any time. Let’s say the Dems take the Senate this year, but not the White House. Cornyn has just provided the rationale for them to refuse to consider ANY nominations from a Republican President.

McConnel said something about not looking at SCOTUS replacements in 2017 if a dem wins.

I guess I’m going to have to come up with some instagram photos that are actually interesting now. In the meantime, here’s the Lone Sailor Memorial in Long Beach and the view a few blocks from my home:

GOP excuses continue to run thin because what they’ve done today is something never before stated in the history of the nation.

There was a time when the Senate would even voice vote nominees. Then came hearings and the GOP lost their crap over Bork, who was afforded both committee hearings and a full Senate vote despite the Judiciary voting not to confirm because he was batcrap crazy.

The Senate then confirmed Kennedy in an election year unanimously. Good nominees get confirmed. That’s the lesson learned by all but the GOP.

The GOP has decided that this President shouldn’t be able to even discharge his Constitutionally mandated power to nominate. They refuse to hold hearings or a vote, which shows that they aren’t following their own strict constructionist take on the Constitution’s obligation to provide advice and consent. Refusing to hold hearings or votes without even knowing who the nominee exposes the craven GOP actions and further supports my belief that every last GOPer must be challenged and tossed from office, starting with the Senate.

Fortunately from what I’ve been reading that a majority of voters aren’t falling for the GOP’s shit on this so hopefully it will bite them in their asses.

Me too. Obama is most likely carefully considering the appointment with a view to making the GOP’s obstruction of the normal process as politically damaging for the GOP as possible. The President is good at that kind of thing.

Me too. Obama is most likely carefully considering the appointment with a view to making the GOP’s obstruction of the normal process as politically damaging for the GOP as possible. The President is good at that kind of thing.

If you find yourself playing the long game against Obama, if you are wise you do something to accelerate the game. I can’t think of a counterexample.

This sets a really fucking awful precedent, and there’s absolutely no reason to think that ‘election year’ will be any kind of bright line, either.

Cornyn’s argument - “they spoke in 2014, too” could apply at any time. Let’s say the Dems take the Senate this year, but not the White House. Cornyn has just provided the rationale for them to refuse to consider ANY nominations from a Republican President.

It’s typical GOP short term thinking. I hope Schumer remembers Cornyn’s argument if this situation happens in a Republican presidency. Unbelievable that they think they can do this. It really is so pathetic yet so telling of what their party is that they’re doing this tantrum.

I don’t think this got mentioned, but the FBI moved into Hildale, UT and Colorado City, AZ (the twin towns run by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) and arrested 11 people, including the “bishop” (read: Warren Jeffs’ enforcer) Lyle Jeffs. Charges are: SNAP fraud and money laundering.

In a case that some say could destroy Utah’s largest polygamous sect, federal prosecutors on Tuesday announced indictments against leaders and members of the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on charges related to food stamp fraud.

Lyle Jeffs, who has been running the FLDS for his imprisoned brother, is one of nearly a dozen people named in an indictment that was unsealed Tuesday while FBI agents and sheriffs deputies searched businesses in Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz., that are owned by members of the FLDS.

The funniest thing about this is that apparently the LaVoy Finicum family, who are bog standard Mormons, live down the road in Cane Beds, and they thought the FBI was coming to raid them (at least to some hair on fire people on the Book of Face). Nope, just the polygamists.

It’s typical GOP short term thinking. I hope Schumer remembers Cornyn’s argument if this situation happens in a Republican presidency. Unbelievable that they think they can do this. It really is so pathetic yet so telling of what their party is that they’re doing this tantrum.

It’s pathetic, and it’s infuriating, but it’s also funny. It’s plain as day they’re scared shitless and really have no idea what to do. They were just so sure Scalia would hang on until the obviously-GOP next president had a chance to replace him. There was no backup plan.

GOP excuses continue to run thin because what they’ve done today is something never before stated in the history of the nation.

There was a time when the Senate would even voice vote nominees. Then came hearings and the GOP lost their crap over Bork, who was afforded both committee hearings and a full Senate vote despite the Judiciary voting not to confirm because he was batcrap crazy.

Hell, the Senate has actually confirmed several lower court (both Court of Appeal and District Court) appointments during Obama’s presidency either by unanimous consent or voice votes. They’re playing this game because it sells with their (donor) base - they’ve spent decades promising that they’re one Supreme Court Justice away from overturning Roe v Wade but Scalia’s death means they could be forced to be two justices away, and then… it’s game over man, game fricken over

The funniest thing about this is that apparently the LaVoy Finicum family, who are bog standard Mormons, live down the road in Cane Beds, and they thought the FBI was coming to raid them (at least to some hair on fire people on the Book of Face). Nope, just the polygamists.

clare.malone: I am still in Vegas, a city that very much appears to not know there is an election today. Like most of America, probably.

harry (Harry Enten, senior political writer): I, for one, look forward to a completely inept state party running a caucus where they will record votes on the back of an envelope, take pictures of those results and send those pictures into headquarters.

natesilver: Nevada: the state where you have no idea who’s going to win before the caucus, and also no idea who won after the caucus.

I agree that the Republicans are being assholes of the highest order in this case.

However, I believe it is a weak argument to regard their refusal to hold hearings and votes for an Obama nominee as being unconstitutional. Their suggestion that Obama make no nomination is where they were being unconstitutional.

It is entirely the prerogative of a Senate majority to ‘discharge’ their constitutional duty to advise and consent with fart noise, as they apparently plan to do.

It is then up to the voters to lovingly and thoroughly apply the rod of correction by voting them out of office all the way from the Senate to the county dogcatcher.

I don’t think this got mentioned, but the FBI moved into Hildale, UT and Colorado City, AZ (the twin towns run by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) and arrested 11 people, including the “bishop” (read: Warren Jeffs’ enforcer) Lyle Jeffs. Charges are: SNAP fraud and money laundering.

The funniest thing about this is that apparently the LaVoy Finicum family, who are bog standard Mormons, live down the road in Cane Beds, and they thought the FBI was coming to raid them (at least to some hair on fire people on the Book of Face). Nope, just the polygamists.

Sen. Lindsey Graham says he will not support a new Supreme Court nominee from President Obama unless it is a consensus choice that both parties can agree on.

This week:

Republicans on the Judiciary committee submitted a letter to the Republican leaders unanimously opposing any hearing for a nominee to replace late Justice Antonin Scalia.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said that’s the “consensus” view among Republicans on the committee and Cornyn said the same.

Graham told CNN separately he would not even meet with any nominee, should he or she make courtesy calls on the Hill.

2010 (re: Kagan)

We lost. President Obama won. I’ve got a lot of opportunity to disagree, but the Constitution, in my view, puts an obligation on me not to replace my judgment for his, not to think of the hundred reasons I would pick someone different… I view my duty as to protect the Judiciary and to ensure that hard-fought elections have meaning in our system

What a fucking profile in courage. (And he just won re-election last year, so he could have behaved like an adult, but NOOOO.)

I’d call Lindsay Graham a craven dog, but that would be a totally unfair insult to craven dogs everywhere.

So I’ll have to content myself with this: Lindsay Graham is a ‘moderate’ Republican.

One of the spineless wonders of the world, the moderate Republican differs from its more aggressively noxious relatives by occasionally sounding reasonable. This never lasts long. Such reasonableness is usually heavily contaminated with both-siderist bullshit, and is invariably part of a talking point emission reflex (much like that of a squid) in response to perceived threats from the center or left. In response to perceived threats from the right, the ‘moderate’ Republican adopts a protective coloration camouflage, and Tea Parties right along with the most dim-witted and malicious members of the GOP base.

I agree that the Republicans are being assholes of the highest order in this case.

However, I believe it is a weak argument to regard their refusal to hold hearings and votes for an Obama nominee as being unconstitutional. Their suggestion that Obama make no nomination is where they were being unconstitutional.

It is entirely the prerogative of a Senate majority to ‘discharge’ their constitutional duty to advise and consent with fart noise, as they apparently plan to do.

It is then up to the votes to lovingly and thoroughly apply the rod of correction by voting them out of office all the way from the Senate to the county dogcatcher.

I don’t agree. If that were so, ANY Senate would have the authority to deny ANY nominations to ANY President.

You’re just a private citizen trying to get on with life. Why should this be a problem for anyone? Yeah, I know. We’re all a bunch of voyeurs peeking in other people’s windows.

If I may quote Jenner7-What bullshit. Hang in there.

That’s what it feels like. You would not believe how bizarrely intrusive it feels when a television personality is actually calling you to pry into your private life and professional life. I have never experienced anything like this.

I’d call Lindsay Graham a craven dog, but that would be a totally unfair insult to craven dogs everywhere.

So I’ll have to content myself with this: Lindsay Graham is a ‘moderate’ Republican.

One of the spineless wonders of the world, the moderate Republican differs from its more aggressively noxious relatives by occasionally sounding reasonable. This never lasts long. Such reasonableness is usually heavily contaminated with both-siderist bullshit, and is invariably part of a talking point emission reflex (much like that of a squid) in response to perceived threats from the center or left. In response to perceived threats from the right, the ‘moderate’ Republican adopts a protective coloration camouflage, and Tea Parties right along with the most dim-witted and malicious members of the GOP base.

The only stance Graham has ever taken that was, in my mind, moderate was his willingness to consider and vote for a justice who was qualified, regardless of his/her leanings, because a president has the right to select someone he/she wants. Now, even that paper-thin patina of rationality is gone.

I’d send him a letter, but Lindsey, after a few years of responding to my missives with form letters, stopped responding completely. My other worthless senator, Tim Scott has said the same thing as Lindsey—and he’s also totally unresponsive. It was bad enough when he was my representative and would not even acknowledge an in-person visit to his office. Now, he wouldn’t spit on me if I were on fire.

And complete with the “Number (X) will surprise you!”, just like ‘Celebrities who died young’, ‘Child Actors who got real ugly’, ‘Signs of an impending heart attack’, ‘Ways to tell if an asteroid will destroy the Earth’, etc.

[…] To begin with, you must physically attend your precinct caucus on Tuesday, February 23rd. Precinct caucuses will start between 5:00pm - 7:00pm and may vary by county. Absentee voting is available for disabled veterans and active duty military, plus their dependents, serving outside of their home county. You can only vote at the caucus location assigned to your precinct.

In addition, not only will you be voting for the Presidential candidate of your choice in the Presidential Preference Poll, you will also be electing delegates and alternate delegates to the county conventions in the spring. And if you want to, you can also help the Party shape its platform.

I imagine that if the Trumpiots write the platform, there will be torture racks for aliens.

Yeah…no. I’d say it’s pretty much unarguable that the Founders never intended for the Senate to be able to deny a President’s authority to make nominations.

That isn’t precisely what the Senate is doing (although it has the same effect in practice). Once Obama has made a nomination, he had done his constitutional duty. The rest is up to the Senate, and if there is no ‘advice and consent’, the nomination doesn’t go through.

To put the question another way, what provision of the constitution would the Senate be violating if Obama makes a nomination and the Senate takes no action at all on it? One might argue that the Senate has an obligation to vote, but would things really be much better if any Obama nomination got a same-day rejection on a party line vote?

That isn’t precisely what the Senate is doing (although it has the same effect in practice). Once Obama has made a nomination, he had done his constitutional duty. The rest is up to the Senate, and if there is no ‘advice and consent’, the nomination doesn’t go through.

To put the question another way, what provision of the constitution would the Senate be violating if Obama makes a nomination and the Senate takes no action at all on it? One might argue that the Senate has an obligation to vote, but would things really be much better if any Obama nomination got a same-day rejection on a party line vote?

That IS precisely what the Senate is doing. His job is to fill the positions, as long as the Senate accepts his nominee. The Senate is refusing to consider ANY nominee. And they’re not playing around about it, either. They bluntly stated they would not spend any time considering any nominations - not even meeting with the nominee, let alone holding hearings or a vote.

Caucuses start between 5 and 7 p.m. PT, or 8 and 10 p.m. EST. Caucuses end at 9 p.m. PT or midnight EST. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will be facing off at a CNN town hall Tuesday evening as they prepare for South Carolina’s Democratic primary on Saturday. Clinton won Nevada’s Democratic caucuses last Saturday.

[…]

Unlike the process for the Democrats, Republican voters will mark their preferred candidate on a secret ballot and they don’t have to stay for speeches. But the Nevada GOP allows participation over a long time period, up to a four-hour window in some counties. People can walk in and cast a presidential preference ballot during that window. And some caucus locations open and close at different times, depending on the county.

Nevada has 30 delegates available for the Republican National Convention, and they’re distributed proportionally based on the results of Tuesday’s primary.

[…]

I imagine a close result will foment lots of accusations from this or that candidate.

That isn’t precisely what the Senate is doing (although it has the same effect in practice). Once Obama has made a nomination, he had done his constitutional duty. The rest is up to the Senate, and if there is no ‘advice and consent’, the nomination doesn’t go through.

To put the question another way, what provision of the constitution would the Senate be violating if Obama makes a nomination and the Senate takes no action at all on it? One might argue that the Senate has an obligation to vote, but would things really be much better if any Obama nomination got a same-day rejection on a party line vote?

What you’re saying is that the Founders wrote the Constitution so as to allow the Senate to prevent the President fulfilling his Constitutional obligations. That’s a bit farfetched.

That’s what it feels like. You would not believe how bizarrely intrusive it feels when a television personality is actually calling you to pry into your private life and professional life. I have never experienced anything like this.

Conservatism has always been about preserving the current power structure - politically, economically, and socially. That means that it BY DEFINITION supports racism and religious intolerance. He’s just mad that Trump has made their support of those things so blatant.

That IS precisely what the Senate is doing. His job is to fill the positions, as long as the Senate accepts his nominee. The Senate is refusing to consider ANY nominee. And they’re not playing around about it, either. They bluntly stated they would not spend any time considering any nominations - not even meeting with the nominee, let alone holding hearings or a vote.

The Senate is not stopping Obama from making a nomination. If attempted, e.g., by passing a law to the effect that a president in the last year of office can’t even make a nomination, that would certainly be unconstitutional.

The Senate is saying, with an unprecedented level of dickishness, that all such nominations are pointless because none will ever get the advice and consent of the Senate.

Again, what exactly about this nonsense is unconstitutional?

The reason I’m harping on this is that if something is unconstitutional, one of the remedies to consider is filing a law suit. If something odious is constitutional, the lawsuit is a waste of time and resources that would be better spent on political agitation against the perpetrators of the outrage.

Plus I don’t like giving RWNJs easy points for swatting down loose talk about this being unconstitutional.

I don’t think it’s unconstitutional, but the idea that the all-important Founding Fathers wanted “the people” to have a voice in picking a supreme court justice (as the GOP is suggesting,) when they didn’t want those same people to directly elect senators is ridiculous.

The Senate is not stopping Obama from making a nomination. If attempted, e.g., by passing a law to the effect that a president in the last year of office can’t even make a nomination, that would certainly be unconstitutional.

The Senate is saying, with an unprecedented level of dickishness, that all such nominations are pointless because none will ever get the advice and consent of the Senate.

Again, what exactly about this nonsense is unconstitutional?

The reason I’m harping on this is that if something is unconstitutional, one of the remedies to consider is filing a law suit. If something odious is constitutional, the lawsuit is a waste of time and resources that would be better spent on political agitation against the perpetrators of the outrage.

Plus I don’t like giving RWNJs easy points for swatting down loose talk about this being unconstitutional.

If the Senate refuses to fulfill their own constitutional duties and in doing so prevents the President from fulfilling his, is that ‘unconstitutional’? Their constitutional duty is to consider the President’s nominees and determine whether they consent to THAT NOMINEE.

I think you’re interpreting it so broadly as to rob it of any meaning.

What you’re saying is that the Founders wrote the Constitution so as to allow the Senate to prevent the President fulfilling his Constitutional obligations. That’s a bit farfetched.

Not really. A majority in the house and 2/3 in the senate, for any reason at all (or even no reason), and the president is out of a job. Congress really is the big dog in the constitution, even though it has given up tons of power to the executive over time.

I don’t think it’s unconstitutional, but the idea that the all-important Founding Fathers wanted “the people” to have a voice in picking a supreme court justice (as the GOP is suggesting,) when they didn’t want those same people to directly elect senators is ridiculous.

BBL

That I certainly agree with. The GOP talking points on this topic are all bullshit.

I don’t think it’s unconstitutional, but the idea that the all-important Founding Fathers wanted “the people” to have a voice in picking a supreme court justice (as the GOP is suggesting,) when they didn’t want those same people to directly elect senators is ridiculous.

BBL

Not only did the Founders not want the people to directly elect senators, they didn’t want the people to directly elect the president (both were left to state legislatures). The only part of the federal government that the “people” had a direct say in was the House of Representatives, and all the important stuff - like confirming treaties, executive appointments, and judicial appointments were specifically excluded from the House’s domain.

Having painted melty things in a small still-life several times, and going by the brushwork and size, I think that painting was done in less than half a workday… Like maybe 4 hours, even though it’s about 20” on a side.

From wikipedia, a poorly written theory:

The painting has thick marks after the artist’s brushwork, probably meant to illustrate the marks after the butter knife used to spread butter with or the wooden spatula, used to spread the butter with and also used in producing the butter.

I’m going to call bullshit on deeper meaning. It’s impasto because he was working fast with ten pounds of melting milkfat, so there was no time or point to try and be super-subtle and smooth. This was a quickie domestic painting to make a buck (I know, I’ve done about 100 of them myself) and he did a phenomenal job conveying all kinds of subtlety in lighting and texture in a hurry. That’s mad skill.

Sometimes I wish the art academics would do a little painting themselves before they wrote up stuff about deeper meanings.

If the Senate refuses to fulfill their own constitutional duties and in doing so prevents the President from fulfilling his, is that ‘unconstitutional’? Their constitutional duty is to consider the President’s nominees and determine whether they consent to THAT NOMINEE.

I think you’re interpreting it so broadly as to rob it of any meaning.

If the Senate were to announce “We’ll reject anybody you nominate unless that person is Zombie Bork”, that would IMO clearly infringe on the president’s job of making nominations.

A blanket refusal to consider any nominations is a murkier issue. A SCOTUS appointment requires a nomination from the president and consent from the Senate, and I just think it’s really hard to get any more than these bare bones out of the constitution.

See, by pulling this, the GOP has taken the gloves off. But now they come off both sides. The only way this doesn’t burn them in the future is if they never, ever lose the majority in the Senate, but this very act could trigger that. If it does, there’s no reason the new Democratic Senate can’t just approve whoever Obama nominates after they’re seated and before the inauguration. If the Republicans are going to be THIS extreme, there’s no reason the Democrats should continue to respect traditions like holds or the filibuster. They could set new rules that prevent filibusters on SCOTUS nominations, and confirm any nomination on a simple majority vote with no hearing.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

They may not be UN-Constitutional by the letter of the law, but they sure are being anti-Constitutional. Because, you know… N*gger President.

If the Senate were to announce “We’ll reject anybody you nominate unless that person is Zombie Bork”, that would IMO clearly infringe on the president’s job of making nominations.

A blanket refusal to consider any nominations is a murkier issue. A SCOTUS appointment requires a nomination from the president and consent from the Senate, and I just think it’s really hard to get any more than these bare bones out of the constitution.

Not only did the Founders not want the people to directly elect senators, they didn’t want the people to directly elect the president (both were left to state legislatures). The only part of the federal government that the “people” had a direct say in was the House of Representatives, and all the important stuff - like confirming treaties, executive appointments, and judicial appointments were specifically excluded from the House’s domain.

Good points all. Many people don’t seem to realize that there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that gives them a right to vote in presidential elections. It is entirely up to the state legislatures to determine how a state’s electoral votes are to be cast, and whether or not any voting is done to determine how the electoral votes will go.

It would be perfectly legal for the Wisconsin state legislature to simply give all of Wisconsin’s electoral votes to the Republican candidate for president in the 2016 election, assuming the deadline for making the necessary changes to state law have not yet passed.

This probably won’t happen, but only because something like this really would get people’s attention.

I vaguely recall some talk in 2000 that Florida was considering doing something similar (talk about a real constitutional crisis) if the recount wasn’t resolved before the electors had to vote. As fucking crazy as that election was, there were about 2000 scenarios where it could have been worse.

But your point about it getting people’s attention is also why I doubt the attempts to award electors either proportionally or by district will ever gain traction.

I vaguely recall some talk in 2000 that Florida was considering doing something similar (talk about a real constitutional crisis) if the recount wasn’t resolved before the electors had to vote. As fucking crazy as that election was, there were about 2000 scenarios where it could have been worse.

But your point about it getting people’s attention is also why I doubt the attempts to award electors either proportionally or by district will ever gain traction.

I note those plans are always contingent on someone else doing it first. I.e., the bills are generally written to be triggered only if enough OTHER states do the same.

See, by pulling this, the GOP has taken the gloves off. But now they come off both sides. The only way this doesn’t burn them in the future is if they never, ever lose the majority in the Senate, but this very act could trigger that. If it does, there’s no reason the new Democratic Senate can’t just approve whoever Obama nominates after they’re seated and before the inauguration. If the Republicans are going to be THIS extreme, there’s no reason the Democrats should continue to respect traditions like holds or the filibuster. They could set new rules that prevent filibusters on SCOTUS nominations, and confirm any nomination on a simple majority vote with no hearing.

The Republicans have really pulled a pin on a grenade, IMO.

Doesn’t matter. Dems don’t do that shit. Not without cause. The GOP has gone further and further and further since Clinton in the 90s.

And if they did, the “liberal” media would excoriate them so none ever got reelected.

A horse drawn carriage in Cienfuegos, Cuba travels past a billboard calling for an end to US sanctions on the island. Cuban government propaganda still paints the US as a hostile force but officials here have said they welcome President Obama’s visit to the island next month. Almost every Cuban I know is excited for the long delayed thaw in relations that is happening before their very eyes.

I note those plans are always contingent on someone else doing it first. I.e., the bills are generally written to be triggered only if enough OTHER states do the same.

I don’t recall linking to other states’ actions being part of the GOP proposals to mess with electoral votes. Plus it make no sense. The whole point of that bit of ratfucking is to steal electoral votes for the GOP from blue states under GOP rule, while keeping Texas etc. winner take all.

You may be thinking of the national popular vote idea where a states’ electoral votes are assigned to the winner of the national popular vote. This is already in law in several states and will take effect if enough states enact this into law to make it decisive (which is unlikely to happen any time soon).

I note those plans are always contingent on someone else doing it first. I.e., the bills are generally written to be triggered only if enough OTHER states do the same.

There’s a few ideas floating around. There’s one that would be an interstate compact where the states agree to award all electoral votes to which ever candidate wins the national popular vote, regardless of what happens in each individual state (small states are never going to go for that). Then there’s occasionally a push in some states to do what Maine and Nebraska do where the statewide winner gets two electoral votes and the rest are awarded by congressional district - that usually comes up in states where with jerrymandered districts that would result in the party who loses statewide getting more electoral votes. Then, even more rare, is an idea to award electors proportionally based on the vote in the state - that one never gets anywhere because partisans realize that it basically makes the state obsolete in the general election (because it’s going to be a historical anomaly to see an election with a gap bigger than 55-45).

Personally, I’m not a fan of any of them. I might be sympathetic to the Maine/Nebraska policy if legislatures gave up the right to draw district lines, but even then, it seems like a less than good idea because it increases the odds of an election being thrown to Congress.

I’m not going to tune in or even pay attention to the shit fest that is about to unfold in Vegas. As far as I’m concerned it’s just a horrible display of every base human behavior. All hard guys and the world will pay. It’s like a bad movie. All trigger men and the crowds just gather to cheer on the impending murder. I hold those who would support any of these cretins in utter contempt. One, for being gullible. Two, for wishing to hurt others, thinking your world will somehow magically turn better from that. So I will just post this and go do something productive. Or at least fun. Then……..

Was digging around in my photos. I took this in June 2013. If ever in BWI check this out. It’s beautiful.

Huh. Bernie just emailed me that Hillary had a fundraiser last night where some high-dollar donors bundled $27,000. I guess it must have been a small party—10 people/$2,700 each—$27,000. Doesn’t seem like very high-dollar shit.

I can not imagine your circumstance. I do though wish you the very best, urge you to let that sharp intelligence take point, lean on your confidence which will blunt anyone’s imposed emotional baggage. We are all humans first and all other labels take a distant second or third or further less important aspect. Human, teacher than whatever you say next.

That is truly vile. Is this the ‘Citizens United’ of the SCOTUS money = speech case?

Yes. It’s the reason I hate it being called Citizens United and not ****. Because that’s what it was all about; the ability to create bullshit “documentaries” 90 (or 180, don’t recall which) days before a election.

It was a staffer who has to write maybe two or three of those a day. I really don’t think Bernie is writing those. And I’m sure the amount was symbolic.

I learned long ago to have a junk email account. I left it alone for a while, and was so alarmed by the sheer amount of DNC emails I had to relegate them to spam and unsubscribe. It was in the thousands.

It was a staffer who has to write maybe two or three of those a day. I really don’t think Bernie is writing those. And I’m sure the amount was symbolic.

I learned long ago to have a junk email account. I left it alone for a while, and was so alarmed by the sheer amount of DNC emails I had to relegate them to spam and unsubscribe. It was in the thousands.

Oh, I know that—I just thought the outrageous outrage over $27,000 was funny. The DCCC emails are the ones that are truly laughable. Each and every one a hair on fire calamity. Can’t believe they actually raise money with that drivel, but apparently they do, or they would change tactics.

Huh. Bernie just emailed me that Hillary had a fundraiser last night where some high-dollar donors bundled $27,000. I guess it must have been a small party—10 people/$2,700 each—$27,000. Doesn’t seem like very high-dollar shit.

That’s really pretty sad. It’s just dumb to make a mountain out of a molehill like that.

Cripes—I’ve had 10 in the last 4 hours—some from candidates in other states whom I’ve never even heard of. (You make ONE donation to an out-of-state candidate and you end up on every email list in perpetuity.)

It wasn’t always like this. But it is surprisingly effective. They’ve made quite a bit with this tactic. And there are positions for people, recent college grads, or if your lucky and prolific, interns with no experience work long hours and write emails responding to current events as they happen: when bills are coming to vote, the actual vote, the results, each will have a fundraising email. It is weirdly informative, but relentless and constant. For every tidbit of info, is an ask for more money, many times, just a dollar.